Sorry for not posting this earlier. Spent several days setting up my new PC, and transferring information from the old while still trying to work (not sure if a PC with a near-perfect performance rating is a purchase worth boasing, when 90% of what I play is AE and old emulated games).

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd The more I look and think about this the more I like the idea. Could you go with 4 of the second design (you've got the triple turrets AND 3.9" in production so this is simple) starting with Circle 4 and have 2 built and two more due in early-42 THEN change to the new DL's (Destroyer Leaders) with the twin turrets for a further run of 4-6 ships in pairs (early-43/early-44/early-45)? They would be simpler, quicker, and less costly to build as a replacement for the old CLs. The initial four would serve as excellent CLAAs for the new CVs being built and the second class serve as more of a true DL. This would serve both the Kido Butai AND the more conservative elements of the Big Gun Kaigun...

Well, assuming $$$s are available available from somewhere, I think shipyards can handle this construction, assuming that the last pair arrives as late as the last Aganos IRL. The idea is worth exploring if we'll ever do another major update to RA. Meanwhile, I'll place the 5.3 update on the site now.

Either people do not have much entusiasm for this thread, or I and Bigred have the longest-running RA among regular posters. I need to update my damn AAR, but unfortunately, the longer I delay this, the harder it is to finally make an update, due to more events piling up.

Dan: 6.3 was when my thoughts were pertaining to using two Mod Files (one for the old extended map and one for the new). Not a big deal. You have the correct files and I decided to keep it just with RA Scen 70.

FatR: Concur with your thinking regarding the CLs. There are certainly a good number of RA Players they just don't all Post here!

I would go with the first model. Assuming that you are looking for replacements for the early CLs, then I can see wanting to maintain the separate turrets. This shows a combination of the Mogami layout for turrets with the twin mounts that were developed for the Agano-class.

This makes sense if you are looking at building the mounts, which are the most time consuming part of the design. You are continuing the production of a mount rather than trying to restart production of the mounts that were used in the Mogami-class.

Where these are deck mounts, without the deck penetration, it makes for an easier to produce design that is more appropriate for a wartime construction project. These ships would combine a respectable amount of firepower, that is survivable because of the separate turrets, with a vessel that is easier to build. It also solves a lot of the stability issues that plagued the Mogami-class and forced their displacement up from the 9,000 ton range originally envisioned.

Is this mod at all compatable with AI play, either with Japanese or the Allies? Seems ilke it might be easier for AI play as the Japanese considering i don't see much in the way of changes for Allied ground units or such.

John 3rd I have a small problem with RA 5.3. I followed the instructions, i thought, and the game started fine. after working on my orders phase for 12/8/41 i discovered a map issue; The top edge from hex colume 1 to about 57 and down to hex row 3 is messed up. For example the Aden base is at 20,3 (where its always been) but the attributes and info for the base are at 7,3. Similar story for Abadan. Also there are some base locations that are kind of out in the middle of these areas. This is the only area i have this problem with. Please Help. Thanks, Patton

PS I dont know how to upload a picture of this area but i suspect you will most likely know what i did wrong. the computer is running win 7 and i have the latest official upgrade.

Is this mod at all compatable with AI play, either with Japanese or the Allies? Seems ilke it might be easier for AI play as the Japanese considering i don't see much in the way of changes for Allied ground units or such.

It might be but I would not recommend it. Pretty sure the AI will get massively lost/confused.

For the map issue, I would re-copy & paste the map panels for that area. In the past, I've had new and old map panels get messed up. Looks like this happened for you as DBB and RA use the extended maps and Aden and other bases along the northern map edge towards the west have changed.

you did post a beautiful thread with exact instructions on how to install the RA Mod with DBB-Map included etc....

I used the search option but didn't find it...

do you have by any chance the link available to it? - I mostly know how to do it, but a friend of mine would like to install it as well - and in order to avoid any mistakes it would cool to have that as a reference :)

you did post a beautiful thread with exact instructions on how to install the RA Mod with DBB-Map included etc....

I used the search option but didn't find it...

do you have by any chance the link available to it? - I mostly know how to do it, but a friend of mine would like to install it as well - and in order to avoid any mistakes it would cool to have that as a reference :)

thx a lot in advance

Sorry about not responding earlier. I have a step-by-step Thread in the War Room. Will bump it up so you can see it and use it. It works without issue.

FWIW, I'm playing as Allies against the Japanese AI, hard setting. I'm into May '43 and so far it is a lot more fun than vanilla. AI keeps it's carriers grouped in 2-4 CV TF's, and has snuck a few sucker punches in on me

One thing I did notice was task forces coming out of the Balboa worm hole would just randomly pop up somewhwere in a triangle Christmas Island to Hawaii to Los Angeles, and with no orders. It took the Indiana a full month to travel from Balboa to PH travelling solo, she almost ran outta gas. Not sure if this is a game bug, or a mod bug due to the map. In any event it's minor, just something to be aware of.

Also, a question to you, John. While it doesn't seem like this, I still work on the Perfect War scenario files, when I have time. Besides new stuff, I've adding some fixes, bringing statistics for various less-glamorous Japanese ships, like LSTs, in line with Jentschura's data and Navypedia, where it doesn't conflict with the former. I'd like to transfer these fixes to RA, making another update some time in the future. What do you think about it?

I have so busy with the running the store here in La Salle, I haven't had time for much of anything then to keep my games slowly moving and have my AAR with Dan on life support.

Thoughts: 1. What changes are you thinking about within RA? 2. The F4F-7 hasn't been looked at. 3. I'm glad you are still working Perfect War. Still want to help with that but simply haven't had the time for a major commitment.

1)Changes to minor stuff like LSTs, minesweepers and the like. Usual stuff, like the game using normal displacement for them (Allied ships the game uses standard displacement), correcting flak and DC upgrades to the best of my ability (while making them available slightly earlier, due to changes in the mod, and so on).